JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 03, 2025, 01:54:51 PM ---Another point that needs to be repeated is that the autopsy report describes a fragment trail that runs from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and that this fragment trail is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The idea that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the fragment trail seen near the top of the head on the extant skull x-rays boggles the mind. A first-year medical student could not have committed such an astounding error. Radiologist Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA that the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the alleged cowlick entry site, which means it is 16 cm above the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report.
Yet, the autopsy doctors said that a fragment trail ran upward from the EOP entry site to a spot slightly above the right eye.
And, amazingly, the autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about a fragment trail near the top of the head. A first-year med student could not have confused one for the other.
--- End quote ---
Another thing to keep in mind about these two revealing facts is that the high fragment trail and the fragment trail described in the autopsy report have different high and low points, i.e., different angles in relation to the skull. The high fragment trail's highest point is near the back of the skull and then goes downward, whereas the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report had its lowest point near the EOP and then went upward toward the right eye. This makes it all the more impossible to believe that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the high fragment trail. They would have had to be blind to perceive the high fragment trail as starting near the EOP and going upward to the right eye. Again, a first-year medical student would not make such an astounding error.
To recap the two key points here:
-- The EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays.
-- The high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays is over 4 inches above the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail, and the two trails have different angles in relation to the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and no one can seriously believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook the high fragment trail for an EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 04, 2025, 05:23:50 PM ---Another thing to keep in mind about these two revealing facts is that the high fragment trail and the fragment trail described in the autopsy report have different high and low points, i.e., different angles in relation to the skull. The high fragment trail's highest point is near the back of the skull and then goes downward, whereas the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report had its lowest point near the EOP and then went upward toward the right eye. This makes it all the more impossible to believe that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the high fragment trail. They would have had to be blind to perceive the high fragment trail as starting near the EOP and going upward to the right eye. Again, a first-year medical student would not make such an astounding error.
To recap the two key points here:
-- The EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays.
-- The high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays is over 4 inches above the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail, and the two trails have different angles in relation to the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and no one can seriously believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook the high fragment trail for an EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail.
--- End quote ---
When you say "the extant skull x-rays," do you mean the ones that the evil, evil bad guys didn't destroy or something?
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on June 02, 2025, 03:26:01 PM ---Just 15 or 20, huh? Have you thought this through?
--- End quote ---
Yes. Look at the Iran-Contra conspiracy. Hundreds of personnel took part in it, and dozens were involved in the attempted cover-up, but only a relative of top officials were driving the operation and then the cover-up. Most of the personnel were just following orders, had no idea where the funding was coming from, and were unaware of other aspects of the operation outside of their own.
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on June 02, 2025, 03:26:01 PM ---Regardless, what makes you think that the "two fragments" you're concerned about were deposited by a bullet or bullets at the back of JFK's skull?
--- End quote ---
Umm, my point is that an FMJ bullet could not have deposited those fragments. A frangible bullet can deposit fragments at/near the entry site on a skull, but an FMJ bullet will never do this. In every wound ballistics test so far, no FMJ bullet deposited a single fragment, much less several, on the outer part of the skull at/near the entry wound. Not one. Never. Never ever.
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on June 02, 2025, 03:26:01 PM ---When you say "the extant skull x-rays," do you mean the ones that the evil, evil bad guys didn't destroy or something?
--- End quote ---
Why do you always resort to theory and assumption when faced with hard evidence? Rather than explain why the skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, you resort to theoretical objections. Similarly, rather than explain the astounding fact that the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays, you argue that, gee, wouldn't the bad guys have destroyed such damning evidence of cover-up?
You forget that the autopsy x-rays were suppressed for years, for over two decades. Only a handful of experts were allowed to view them during the two decades following the assassination. Heck, even the autopsy doctors were not allowed to review them before testifying to the WC, a fact that they found troubling. But, when independent experts were finally allowed to examine the skull x-rays, they found numerous clear indications of alteration and confirmed this via independent optical-density measurements.
So, are you going to try to explain why the skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? There are really only three possibilities:
1. The autopsy doctors committed the unfathomable, astounding blunder of confusing the high fragment trail for a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ranged upward to just above the right eye.
2. The autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail. IOW, the low fragment trail never existed. The autopsy doctors fabricated it in order to explain the EOP entry wound.
3. The low fragment trail did exist but was made to disappear because it was a clearly separate trail from the high fragment trail, thus proving that two bullets hit JFK's head.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 05, 2025, 06:10:55 PM ---[...]
--- End quote ---
Why do you always apply the most paranoiac interpretation to events?
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on June 07, 2025, 10:49:46 AM ---Why do you always apply the most paranoiac interpretation to events?
--- End quote ---
What exactly is "paranoid" about my view that the astonishing contradictions between the autopsy report and the autopsy skull x-rays prove the x-rays have been altered? Do you live somewhere where people involved in a cover-up never alter evidence? Have you heard of the Rampart scandal, where investigators finally discovered that numerous Los Angeles Police Department officers had been planting evidence, tampering with evidence, and destroying evidence for years? The city of LA ended up having to pay a massive settlement over those cases.
So, how about you finally, finally, finally deal with and explain the facts I've presented. Let's review them:
The autopsy report describes a fragment trail that runs from the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye, and this fragment trail is nowhere to be seen on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The idea that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the fragment trail seen near the top of the head on the extant skull x-rays boggles the mind. A first-year medical student could not have committed such an astounding error. Radiologist Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA that the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the alleged cowlick entry site, which means it is 16 cm above the EOP entry site described in the autopsy report.
Yet, the autopsy doctors said that a fragment trail ran upward from the EOP entry site to a spot slightly above the right eye.
And, amazingly, the autopsy report says nothing--not one word--about a fragment trail near the top of the head. A first-year med student could not have confused one for the other, much less missed the high fragment trail.
Also, the high fragment trail on the x-rays and the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report have different high and low points, i.e., different angles in relation to the skull. The high fragment trail's highest point is near the back of the skull and then goes downward, whereas the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report had its lowest point near the EOP and then went upward toward the right eye. This makes it all the more impossible to believe that the autopsy doctors were actually describing the high fragment trail. They would have had to be blind to perceive the high fragment trail as starting near the EOP and going upward to the right eye. Again, a first-year medical student would not make such an astounding error.
The crux of the problem:
-- The EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays, and the high fragment trail seen on the x-rays is not mentioned in the autopsy report.
-- The high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays is over 4 inches above the starting point of the autopsy report's low fragment trail, and the two trails have different angles in relation to the skull. Incredibly, the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail, and no one can seriously believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole mistook the high fragment trail for an EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail.
So, are you going to try to explain why the skull x-rays don't show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and why the autopsy report says nothing about the high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays? There are really only three possibilities:
1. The autopsy doctors committed the unfathomable, astounding blunder of confusing the high fragment trail for a fragment trail that started near the EOP and ranged upward to a point just above the right eye.
2. The autopsy doctors fabricated the low fragment trail. IOW, the low fragment trail never existed. The autopsy doctors fabricated it in order to explain the EOP entry wound.
3. The low fragment trail did exist but was made to disappear because it was a clearly separate trail from the high fragment trail, thus proving that two bullets hit JFK's head.
The only innocent explanation is #1, but it is so unbelievable as to be unthinkable and untenable. The high fragment trail is at least 2 inches above the starting point of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, and its angle the exact opposite of the angle described in the autopsy report.
What's your explanation for these contradictions?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version